This template is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
The information contained in this template is extremely biased towards non-objective sources of information about UFOs. I fully intend to correct this when I get time. 126.96.36.199 21:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)RDB I will open a WIKI account so as to do the work in a more "conventional" WIKI persona.
You will discuss with us any corrections you have in mind, it must be agreed upon (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
If you wanted to, you could discuss the ideas you had in mind with us now before you start editing it in the future in order to get it out of the way, we could see what the consensus is (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
This template is too large, to incoherent, misleading (ugh, look what's classified as science here, and includes topics not directly related to UFOlogy. If you need this template at all, downsizing would address most concerns. --Pjacobi 20:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
We have been and will continue to downsize the template, just takes time to organize everything together hehe (:O) -Nima Baghaeitalk · cont 20:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I feel this template has lost a lot of its usefulness in these sweeping edits. I agree that the last version was a tab bit long. Perhaps someone should break the topics from the last version into separate templates. For example, Ufologists:Alive, Ufologists:Deceased, Ufology:Important Cases, etc. The Ufologists one would be extremely helpful for someone jumping from researcher to researcher for bios. I could tackle that specific one if no one else wants to. SeanFromIT 23:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem with this is that you are going to get a lot of people trying to put every single ufologist on the template and that really can't be stopped, it just gets messy, its best to put all the major listings in articles and just provide a single link, the template in my opinion is fine right now (:O) -Nima Baghaeitalk · cont · email 22:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, User:Nima_Baghaei, for your polite wording in the edit summary, and I will respect your past issues with regard to this template. Yours, Smee 13:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC).